You know his history right?
No. But if he knows, and he instead said otherwise, then he’s a liar. I thought he was just a partisan.
As to Obama not figuring out how to do the infrastructure thing…for most of his two terms he had a Republican Congress completely opposed and not willing to work with him at all. He didn’t figure it out because they were the party of NO and were unwilling to do anything with him.
Time for a fact check. Everyone knows THIS QUOTE:
National Journal: What’s the job?
McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
It is Holy Writ on the left that this statement is proof that there was nothing Obama could do to win Republican votes on anything, and thus the gridlock in the government under the Obama Administration was the sole fault of the GOP.
But this question was immediately followed by this one, which…..oddly…..is not quoted at all.
NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?
McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.
A more careful read of the record shows that Obama consistently proposed measures that contained items known to be toxic to Republicans (e.g., more revenues from the high wage earners), AND/OR only proposed measures that centralized more power into the federal government (e.g., program control went into the agencies, not into (for example) block grants to the states).
IOW, for eight years, we almost exclusively saw Obama demanding one of two items that were non-starters for Republicans. As an intelligent man, Obama obviously knew this; he chose his path anyway. So, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that the gridlock was on both sides.
This was made clear within the last two weeks with the failed healthcare bill when Sen. Cotton noted it was much easier to say no as they did during the Obama years vs having to actually craft real policy. Cotton also noted that the Obama admin didn’t quite ram ACA through Congress. It took about 18 months and at the end of it all he had a lot of people on board, just not the majority of Republicans.
I read Cotton’s comments carefully. I like Cotton, but he was not in Congress when the matters he was commenting on occurred; in fact, he was doing something else which almost assures that we was not paying close attention to the matter.
And of course, the ACA didn’t just not have the majority of Republicans; it had NO Republicans. Zero. Nada. Nothing. That’s saying something, when you had at the time probably a dozen Republicans, if not more, who would have agreed with you that American needs SOME TYPE of universal care system.
Cotton is correct that saying ‘no’ is simpler than crafting policy. And he’s also correct that the ACA took time (about 14 months, actually) because Obama and Pelosi kept having to cut back on its reach to gain agreement from centrist Democrats. That’s not a “ram”.
What WAS a “ram” was passing it through reconciliation. To accomplish this, the ACA had to be gutted of anything that didn’t fit the rules of the Senate. After this occurred, it was not the same bill that was voted on by the House and scored by the CBO, having been stripped of many of the provisions that gave it a chance for fiscal survival.
So, one concludes that the Dems decided that passing it was more important than it being good legislation, working off the theory that once it was in place, the GOP would have no alternative but to help them fix it by putting the stripped provisions back in. This turned out to be incorrect and worse, unwise.
Trump is bad for this country. His administration is bad for this country.
Time will tell. I think we’ve had pretty bad presidenting this century so far, to be blunt. I am not sure that Trump will prove to be the worst of the three. Probably will, but it’s possible he’s not.
The folks who couldn’t stand Obama thought the solution was to swing the other direction completely which was a mistake.
Hm. So, your argument is that Trump was nominated because he was the most anti-Obama of the group? Not sure that’s true. The GOP had a choice between several decent and viable candidates, and a larger group of less viable ones, but also decent. They chose Trump, if you look at the swing states that moved, because he addressed their economic issues. No other candidate in either party, with the exception of Mr. Sanders, even noticed that those economic problems were there.
Had Kaisich won the primary he would have easily won the election and we wouldn’t be hearing any of the nonsense coming out of this administration daily.
Well, Clinton was so damaged, that I think that most of Republicans would have beaten her like a drum, including Kasich. Trump was the only reason it was a competitive race, most likely.
